This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-12-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Appellant has made much of Dr. Rana's report on the absence of medical traces of hymenal laceration on AAA. Given, however, the unwavering sworn account of AAA as to what she went through in appellant's hands, the Court cannot accord merit to the argument that the lack of physical manifestation of rape weakens the case against the latter. The medical report on AAA is only corroborative of the finding of rape. The absence of external signs or physical injuries on the complainant's body does not necessarily negate the commission of rape.[25] This is because hymenal laceration is not an element of the crime of rape,[26] albeit a healed or fresh laceration is a compelling proof of defloration.[27] What is more, the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony and not the findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict.[28] | |||||
|
2008-06-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The presence of old healed lacerations in the victim's hymen is irrelevant to appellant's defense. In the same way that their presence does not mean the victim was not raped recently, the absence of fresh lacerations does not negate rape either. Indeed, hymenal laceration is not an element of the crime of rape.[55] In the crime of rape, the testimony of the victim, and not the findings of the medico-legal officer, is the most important element to prove that the felony had been committed. Even without a medical report, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim's testimony alone if credible is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime.[56] AAA's testimony was, indeed, credible and sufficient to convict the appellant. | |||||
|
2007-12-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In this regard, worth noting are the Supreme Court's pronouncement that, a medical examination and report is not indispensable to a conviction for rape. Thus, eventhough there was no evidence that [AAA's] hymen had old lacerations or that the spermatozoa found therein belonged to [appellant], still, the latter's conviction can still be sustained in that a medical report is even not necessary to prove that the crime of rape was committed.[47] (Emphasis supplied.) At any rate, the presence of old healed lacerations in the victim's hymen is irrelevant to appellant's defense. In the same way that their presence does not mean the victim was not raped recently, the absence of fresh lacerations does not negate rape either. Indeed hymenal laceration is not an element of the crime of rape.[48] | |||||
|
2003-11-27 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Appellant heavily relies on the virgo intacta theory.[19] He disregards Dr. Daniel's testimony that there are two types of hymen: (1) one that remains intact even though there is penetration; (2) the other is lacerated after penetration.[20] We have ruled that in rape cases the absence of fresh lacerations does not preclude the finding of rape, [21] especially when the victim is of tender age.[22] Moreover, laceration of the hymen is not an element of the crime of rape.[23] Hymenal rupture or any indication of vaginal laceration or genital injury is not necessary for the consummation of rape.[24] Its absence does not negate a finding of forced sexual coitus.[25] For the rule is well settled that rape is consummated by the slightest penile penetration of the labia majora or pudendum of the female organ.[26] Indeed, the evidentiary weight of the medical examination of the victim, as well as the medical certificate, is merely corroborative in character and is not an indispensable element for conviction for rape.[27] | |||||